Letter: Editorial forgets that pipelines will leak
To the editor, This is in response to your July 10 editorial titled "Hoping for no protests over pipeline." The editorial seems to allude that the First Amendment only applies to the press. The Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law ... pr...
To the editor,
This is in response to your July 10 editorial titled “Hoping for no protests over pipeline.”
The editorial seems to allude that the First Amendment only applies to the press. The Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”
The First Amendment is essential to you, especially when the president is at war with the free press. Because of the press we have daily revelations of improper and possibly illegal actions by U.S. “appropriate agencies” How can you embrace the portion protecting freedom of the press yet mock the right of people to peaceably assemble?
Through Martin Luther King’s peaceful assembly, strides were made against the “appropriate agencies” racist laws. Through peaceful assembly of citizens against an unpopular Vietnam War begun and perpetuated by “appropriate agencies,” our young soldiers were brought home.
Without reading the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) or knowing the subterfuge within, you question demonstrations by those opposed to a giant pipeline forced through the heart of Minnesota’s lakes country with a large swath traversing some of our most susceptible groundwater.
History has shown it is not whether, rather when, pipelines leak: the Kalamazoo River in 2010; at least 35 spills in the first year of Keystone XL pipeline operation; and the Dakota Access pipeline has already leaked. How can you justify journalism within your paper without an in-depth, fair and impartial reporting of issues? Simplistic, sensational journalism covering protests or major spills is easy.
Thirteen young adult youth intervenors were granted full contested case hearing status; it’s their generation burdened by the predictable pipeline pollution. Many groups such as Minnesota Lake Associations are also against Enbridge’s proposed alignment. Less hazardous alternatives exist.
Approximately 3,000 pages of written comments and supporting documents (80 percent in opposition) have been submitted to the Department of Commerce regarding the DEIS. I am a Minnesota registered professional geologist and retired DNR hydrologist who worked 32 years in the Park Rapids/Osage area. I crafted 220 pages of scientific critique with supporting documentation.
Your editorial is openly disdainful to a significant part of the First Amendment under which you are protected and is bereft of knowledgeable journalistic backing.
Detroit Lakes, Minn.